User talk:Jimmy Pitt

This is Jimmy Pitt's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Jimmy Pitt}} on your talk.

This is Jimmy Pitt's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 7 days

Template:Archive box collapsible

J.I.M. Stewart

Thanks for cleaning up this article and adding references. The one sentence that I still am wondering about is this: "His detective novels, which were designed as entertainments, are written in an exuberantly humorous style, with fanciful plots and contrivances, and an abundance of literary allusions."

Do either of the sources footnoted after this sentence specifically confirm "exuberantly", "fanciful" and the descriptive statements used in this sentence? If so, could you perhaps make reference to the supporting work, perhaps something like, "Rosemary Herbert refers to the exuberantly humourous style in which his detective novels were written" etc.

Guinness323 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do. Herbert, for example, writes: "[He is] one of the best known of the farceurs, variously characterised as donnish, civilized, and literate. His detective novels are distinguished by mischievous wit, exuberant fancy and adroit contrivance, with literary allusion a sine qua non." Rosenbaum writes: "M--I--'s major contribution to English mystery fiction is his wonderful tongue-in-cheek propensity for turns of phrase that prove more intriguing and delightful than his contrivances of plot" and refers to "his predilection for the intellectual with the sheer joy of excess" and "a tour de force of words replete with scores of literary allusions".

For myself, I think the paragraph is adequately sourced, but, adopting your suggestion, I've just rewritten the first part of the relevant paragraph, which (I hope) will meet your concerns. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent writing. I think it reads as being more "grounded" in secondary-source fact now. Thank you for taking the time to do this.Guinness323 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in County Durham

Hey, I have just noticed all you good work on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in County Durham. I think it is fairly close to being of featured list quality, if you are interested in nominating it in the near future. There are a few things which will likely be picked up on at WP:FLC which we can try to anticipate and fix before sending it there, so just to let you know I may make a few changes over the coming weeks! All the best, Suicidalhamster (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]